[陶瓷]历经曲折清丽出尘 访西安柴窑文化博物馆

百度 人们经常认为钱与道德败坏的有关。

Update required?

Oshwah, Primefac, I do believe the list of former functionaries, especially arbitrators, is not up to date. This is obviously by inadvertant omission, but it would help some forms of research if the lists could be checked for accuracy. Thanks. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? The list is supposed to contain everyone who is on the mailing list, and for various reasons not all former arbs and rights holders are on the mailing list. I happen to have a script which checks the main parts of Template:Functionaries, and it's not showing anything out of date. However, due to a recent change in the mail software, only mailing list admins can now check who's actually on the mailing list, but it was correct as of January 2021, and there's not a lot of churn. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a list of former arbs, but former arbs that are also on the mailing list. If you know of anyone specific who is missing, as zzuuzz says, please let us know so that they can be re-added. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I realiase it's for the mailing list, but after looking everywhere, it was the nearest I could find to a list of former functionaries. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find such a list. There is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, which lists all current and former arbs (without specifying their permissions). I get the impression it's probably fairly accurate. For other functionaries (rights holders), I think you'd have to resort to picking through various logs and page histories. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd skim through the CUOS appointments and compare them to the current list of functs. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that, zzuuzz. It's exactly what I was looking for. It even has charts from the very beginning. I had tried Googling 'History of Wikipedia Arbitration Committee' but nothing relevant came up. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
• 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 11:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Question for functionaries

On tonight's Empty Category list, Category:Wikipedia functionary statistics showed up. Typically, I tag empty categories the next day but it is unusual to see Wikipedia project-related categories on this list, it's almost entirely categories for either main space articles or for other categories so I thought I'd bring it up in case you had an ongoing use for this category.

Yesterday, I noticed in the Deletion log, that quite a lot of templates and template-related pages that contained functionary stats from the past few years were deleted. I'm not sure if this was a decision supported by functionaries themselves or just the result of a discussion among the few number of editors who participate in TFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:CheckUser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: do you happen to have a link to that TFD? It looks like Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics isn't borked, so that's something, but it might be good to know what was deleted just in case, I certainly wasn't aware of any such discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking functionaries who have been denied Wikimania scholarships

Hi all! I'm thinking of writing a Signpost op-ed discussing how difficult it is for even the most highly active editors to receive scholarships to Wikimania. I know from offline conversations with several of you that even functionaries commonly have their scholarship applications denied. If this applies to you and you are willing to have the fact mentioned in the piece, please add yourself to the list below (optionally along with any comments you'd like to share). Thanks! Sdkb?^talk 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Perhaps a first step might be gathering some basic information on Wikimania scholarships and functionaries. For example:
  • Who is being included in the definition of "functionaries"? Are you including people who have global-level permissions (e.g., global admins, global renamers, ombuds, U4C members)? Remember that it's pretty much only English Wikipedia that does not include administrators and bureaucrats in its count of functionaries. Most projects include both.
  • How many functionaries are there across ALL projects? (For example, there are about 200 checkusers over all projects. There are 11 arbitration committees with 5-15 members. There are 32 stewards.) Even excluding project-only admins and bureaucrats, there would be about 500 people in this group.
  • How many scholarships are usually available? Please ensure you count scholarships granted by organizations other than the WMF. At least some affiliates have also granted Wikimania scholarships.
  • What percentage of Wikimania attendees receive a scholarship?
  • What are the stated purposes of Wikimania scholarships, and what are the rules?
    • How have these changed over the years?
  • What is the percentage of Wikimania attendees who attended on scholarship? (Remember to count people who were on non-WMF scholarships.)

I think it's necessary to be able to answer these questions in order to put the question of Wikimania scholarships into context. Risker (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The op seems to have kind of a weird premise, that somehow functionaries deserve a scholarship more than other users. (although, as Risker knows, the events I have made it to have had lots of them)

One of the questions they ask is if you've gotten one before. This would seem to imply that they are trying not to spend money on the same people repeatedly when there are others, functionaries or not, equally deserving, and I'm totally cool with that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply here (I created this thread in source text mode so accidentally wasn't subscribed to it). @Risker, to answer your questions, I'm defining functionaries as this page does, i.e. everyone on the mailing list. Given that I'm using functionaries as a proxy for "highly active and highly respected editors", the precise definition doesn't matter. The statistics about how many functionaries or attendees also aren't that relevant, as I'm not calculating percentages of functionaries who apply, but rather just seeking examples. The percentage of scholarship applicants who receive one is relevant for the op-ed, and is something that's known to be shockingly low. Regarding what the purpose of Wikimania scholarships ought to be, that seems pretty straightforward to me — it should be to try to get more editors (and more diverse editors) to attend, so that the conference and ultimately movement will benefit. The most highly active and highly trusted editors are among those whose attendance would have the most impact, so they ought to be given some amount of preference. @Just Step Sideways, I'm not sure we can draw much inferences from that question — to the extent they've disclosed their process in the past, it hasn't included any preference for first-time attendees to my knowledge.

I'd still like to have a few names to list. If it helps folks to have a more concrete sense of how they'll be used, I was thinking of starting the op-ed with a paragraph something along the lines of: What do Editor1, Editor2, and Editor3 have in common? You might answer that they're all functionaries, among the most respected and trusted editors on the project. But here's something else they have in common: They've all applied for scholarships to attend Wikimania and been rejected. This would then lead into an argument for the WMF to be spending more on scholarships along the lines of what I said on Jimbo's talk page. If anyone is willing to be listed, please let me know. Sdkb?^talk 06:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Sdkb. Based on what I have personally observed at various Wikimanias, somewhere between 8 and 15% of people are attending on a full or partial scholarship from either the WMF or one of the affiliates that provides scholarships. The actual numbers are dependent on a lot of factors, the main one being the cost to travel to wherever the Wikimania is being held. As best I have observed, European affiliates send a lot of scholars when Wikimania is in Europe simply because it is less expensive than to send people to Africa, Asia, or the Americas for them; I believe they budget about the same amount of money for scholarships each year, but travel to another continent is more expensive, so fewer are handed out those years. As I recall, there was at least one year where many people who were granted scholarships were unable to obtain the visas to travel to Wikimania; my understanding is that their scholarship was held over to the next Wikimania, and that may now be a routine. I think in fairness, that you're going to have to look at there being roughly 500-800 people who you would categorize as functionaries across all the global communities. That's half or more than the number of in-person attendees at all but a few pre-Covid Wikimanias, and I don't expect to see more than 1000 people at a Wikimania again now that we do so much more on a virtual basis. I don't know that you're actually right about the attendance of functionaries being more impactful than regular editors; Wikimania Cape Town did an amazing job of motivating and activating many African editing communities, and Wikimania Singapore appears to have had a similar effect on the Asian editing communities. In both of those cases, it was non-functionary attendees from the "host region" who really had an impact on both content and community structure.

I've attended a lot of Wikimanias, but only once did I apply for and receive a partial scholarship, and I was granted that partial scholarship because I was making presentations. That was back in 2013. I will add that the WMF has often hosted a "functionaries dinner" at Wikimania (with functionaries being CU/OS/Arb/Ombud/steward), and they've had attendance of anywhere from about 20 to about 60 people. I know for a fact that not all functionaries attend these, as there are always other significant social events happening at the same time. Risker (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)